SYLLABUS DESIGN FOR ENGLISH COURSES
Bambang Irfani
Institut Agama Islam Negeri (IAIN) Raden Intan Lampung
bambangirfani@yahoo.com
Abstract
The planning of courses including designing curriculum
and syllabus is often ignored in English language teaching
and teacher training. Harmer (2000) states that decisions
about course content are very often not taken by teachers,
but by some higher authority. Even many institutions
present the syllabus in terms of the main textbook to be
used - by a certain date, teachers are expected to have
covered a certain number of units in the book. At the
same time teachers are often provided with a list of
supplementary material and activities available. Yet, the
graduates of such programs as English teacher training are
often required to carry out course design task without
having received sufficient training to do so. As a matter of
fact, course design requires specialized expertise which
can be gained through learning and practice. Designing
courses is unlike preparing one's own teaching as it should
be understood by others who will use the design.
Therefore, it is very urgent to equip the English teachers
with the basic competence of course design.
Key words: syllabus design, English courses
A. Rationale
Curriculum and syllabus are two major documents necessarily prepared in
a course design task. Where a curriculum describes the broadest contexts in
which planning for language instruction takes place, a syllabus is a more
circumscribed document, usually one which has been prepared for a particular
group of learners (Dubin and Olshtain, 1986). In other words, a syllabus is more
specific and more concrete than a curriculum, and a curriculum may contain a
number of syllabi. A curriculum may specify only the goals ± what the learners
will be able to do at the end of the instruction ± while the syllabus specifies the
content of the lessons used to lead the learners to achieve the goals (Krahnke,
22
1987). Content or what is taught is the single aspect of syllabus design to be
considered.
It includes behavioral or learning objectives for students,
specifications of how the content will be taught and how it will be evaluated.
The aspects of language teaching method which are closely related to
syllabus are the theory of language, theory of learning and the learner type. The
choice of syllabus should take those three aspects into consideration.
Furthermore, to design a syllabus is to decide what gets taught and in what order.
For this reason, the theory of language explicitly or implicitly underlying the
method will play a major role in determining what syllabus is adopted.
In
addition, a theory of learning will also play an important part in determining the
syllabus choice.
For example, a teacher may accept a structural theory of
language, but not accept that learners can acquire language materials according to
a strict grammatical sequence of presentation. While the basic view of language
may be structural, the syllabus, in that case, may be more situational or even
content-based.
Learner type is another variable in the choice of syllabus of
syllabus. Learner types can be seen in practical and observable terms, such as
type of cognitive activity, life style, aspirations, employment, educational and
social backgrounds and so on ((Krahnke, 1987).
The choice of a syllabus is a major decision in language teaching, and it
should be made as consciously and with as much information as possible.
According to Krahnke (1987), there are six types of language teaching syllabus
including:
1. A structural (or formal) syllabus.
It is one in which the content of
language teaching is a collection of the forms and structures, usually
grammatical, of the language being taught. Examples of structure include:
nouns, verbs, adjectives, statements, questions, complex sentences,
subordinate clauses, past tense, and so on, although formal syllabi may
include other aspects of language form such as pronunciation or
morphology.
2. A notional/functional syllabus. It is one in which the content of language
teaching is a collection of the functions that are performed when language
is used, or of the notions that language is used to express. Examples of
23
functions include: informing, agreeing, apologizing, requesting, promising,
and so on. Examples of notions include size, age, color, comparison, time,
and so on.
3. A situational syllabus. It is one in which the content of language teaching
is a collection of real or imaginary situations in which language occurs or
is used. A situation usually involves several participants who are engaged
in some activity in a specific setting. The language occurring in the
situation involves a number of functions, combined into a plausible
segment of discourse.
The primary purpose of situational language
teaching syllabus is to teach the language that occurs in the situations.
Sometimes the situations are purposely relevant to the present or future
needs of the language learners, preparing them to use the new language in
the kinds of situations that make up the syllabus. Examples of situations
include: seeing then dentist, complaining to the landlord, buying a book at
the bookstore, meeting a new student, asking directions in a new town, and
so on.
4. A skill-based syllabus. It is one in which the content of language teaching
is a collection of specific abilities that may play a part in using language.
Skills are things that people must be able to do to be competent in a
language, relatively independently of the situation or setting in which the
language use can occur. While situational syllabi group functions together
into specific settings of language use, skill-based syllabi group linguistic
competencies (pronunciation, vocabulary, grammar, sociolinguistic, and
discourse) together into generalized types of behavior, such as listening to
spoken language for the main idea, writing well-formed paragraphs, giving
effective oral presentations, taking language tests, reading texts for main
ideas or supporting details, and so on. The primary purpose of skill-based
instruction is to learn a specific language skill. A possible secondary
purpose is to develop more general competence in the language, learning
only incidentally any information that may be available while applying the
language skills.
24
5. A task-based syllabus. It is similar to content-based syllabus in that both
the teaching is not organized around linguistic features of the language
being learned but according to some other organizing principle. In taskbased instruction the content of the teaching is a series of complex and
purposeful tasks that the students want or need to perform with the
language they are learning. The tasks are defined as activities with a
purpose other than language learning, but, as in a content-based syllabus,
the performance of the tasks is approached in a way that is intended to
develop second/foreign language ability.
Language learning is
subordinated to task performance, and language teaching occurs only as
the need arises during the performance of a given task. Tasks integrate
language (and other) skills in specific settings of language use. They
differ from situations in that while situational teaching has the goal of
teaching the specific language content that occurs in the situation ± a
predefined product ± task-based teaching has the goal of teaching students
to draw on resources to complete some piece of work ± a process. The
language students draw on a variety of language forms, functions, and
skills, often in an individual and unpredictable way, in completing the
tasks. Tasks that can be used for language learning are, generally, tasks
that the learners actually have to perform in any case. Examples are
applying for a job, talking with a social worker, getting housing
information over the telephone, completing bureaucratic forms, collecting
information about preschools to decide which to send a child to, preparing
a paper for another course, reading a textbook for another course, and so
on.
6. A content-based syllabus. It is not really a language teaching syllabus at
all.
In content-based language teaching, the primary purpose of the
instruction is to teach some content or information using the language that
the students are also learning. The students are simultaneously language
students and students of whatever content is being taught. The subject
matter is primary, and language learning occurs incidentally to the content
learning.
The content teaching is not organized around the language
25
teaching, but vice versa. Content-based language teaching is concerned
with information, while task-based language teaching is concerned with
communicative and cognitive processes. An example of content-based
language teaching is a science class taught in the language that the
students need or want to learn, possibly with linguistic adjustments to
make the science more comprehensible.
In practice, of course, these different types rarely occur independently of
each other. Almost all actual language teaching syllabi are combinations of two
or more of the types of syllabus described here.
B. Types of English Syllabus
1. The Structural Syllabus
The structural or grammatical syllabus is doubtless the most familiar of
syllabus types. It has a long history, and a major portion of language teaching has
been carried out using some form of it. The structural syllabus is based on a
theory of language that assumes that the grammatical or s t r u c t u r a l aspects
of l anguage form are the most basic or useful. When functional
ability, or ability to use or communicate in the new language, is a goal of
instruction, the structural syllabus can be said to embrace a theory of
learning that holds that functional
abilit y
arises
from
structural
knowledge or abilit y.
The cont ent of the st ruct ural syllabus is language form,
primarily grammatical form, and the teaching is defined in terms of form.
Although the definit ion of language form and the most appropriat e
"gramm ar " to use in pedagogy have long been disputed, most
existing structural syl l abi use some form of traditi onal, Lat in -based,
descriptive/prescriptive grammatical classification and terminolog y. The
usual grammati cal categor ies are the f a m i l i ar ones of noun, verb,
pronoun, adjective, singular, plural , present t ense, past t ense, and
so on. The domain of structural syllabi has tended to be limited to the
26
sentence. That is, the sentence is the l argest unit of discourse t hat is
regul arl y t reat ed. A cl assifi cation of
includes
sem ant i c a l l y
defined
t ypes
s e n t e n c e t ypes usuall y
such
as
statements
or
declaratives, questions or interrogatives, exclamations, and conditionals, and
grammatically defined types such as simple, compound, and complex sentences.
A good deal of morphology can also be found in s t r u c t u r a l syllabi, such
as s i n g u l a r and plural marking, the forms marking the tense system of the language, and special morphology such as d e t e r m i n e r s and articles, prepositions
and postpositions, g e n d e r m a rkers, and so on. Morphol og y al s o deal s
wi t h vocab u l a r y, specifically formal aspects such as prefixes and suffixes.
A key feature of the structural syllabus is that it is "synthetic" (Wilkins,
1976; Yalden, 1983). Synthetic syllabi require analyses of the language (content),
such word frequency counts, g r a m m a t i c a l analysis, and d i s course a n a l ys i s .
The s yl l a b u s designer u s e s the elements isolated as a result of the analyses to
make up the content of the syllabus. In most cases there a r e rules, p a t t e r n s and
g r a m m a t i c a l elements, u s u a l l y with guidelines for their combination and
use. Because o f their synthetic nature, structural syllabi assume a gene r a l theory
of learning t h a t holds that l e a r n e r s can s ynt hesi z e t he m at eri al bei ng
t aught i n one of at least two ways. First, the analyzed information - the rules
and p a t t e r n s - a r e available as the learner a t t e m p t s to use them in linguistic
communication. The l e a r n e r uses the information either to generate or produce
u t t e r a n c e s or discourse, or to check the accuracy of production. Second,
a n a l yz e d information is transformed from analyzed, possibly conscious
knowledge, into the largely unconscious behavior t h a t makes up language use.
2. The Notional/Functional Syllabus
The notional/functional syllabus is the best known of contemporary
language teaching syllabus types. It is, however, also the object of a great
deal of misunderstanding. On the one hand, while notional/functionalism
has been referred to as an "approach" (Brumfit & Johnson, 1979:
Widdowson, 1979), it has never been described as anything other than a
type of content of language instruction that can be taught through a variety
27
of classroom techniques. On the other hand", notional/functionalism has
been closely associated with what has been called "communicative
language teaching" (Brumfit & Johnson, 1979; Richards & Rodgers, 1986;
Widdowson, 1979), a rather amorphous view of language teaching that has
been referred to as a method but is really a collection of different
approaches and procedures clustered around notional/functional content.
Because of its broad scope, its confusion with instructional method,
and its own lack of definition, notional/functionalism is d ifficult to
describe clearly. A narrow perspective is taken here, viewing the notion al/functional movement only in terms of a means for defining instructional
content. In this sense, notional/functional syllabi have much in common
with structural syllabi in that both are subject to a variety of interpretations
and can be associated with a variety of methodologies.
At its simplest, notional/functionalism is, in Richards and Rodgers '
(1986) terms, a theory of language. It holds that basic to language are the
uses to which it is put. If language is seen as a relationship between form
and function, notional/functionalism takes the function side of the equation
as primary and the form side as secondary. For example, rather than
regarding the future tense form (with w i l l) in English as basic and
discussing the uses to which it can be put (e.g., talking about the future,
making promises) as secondary, in a functional view of language, notions
such as future and functions such as promising are considered basic and
the future tense form is discussed as one way of realizing these notions and
functions.
Other
interpretations
and
applications
have
elaborated
on
notional/functionalism, but the most basic point of the movement in language
teaching is that categories of language use rather than, categories of Language
form have been taken as the organizing principle for instruction.
3. Situational Syllabi
The situational syllabus has a long history in language teaching, but
situational content has mostly been used as an adjunct to instruction that is
primarily focused on language form and structure. Many "methods," from
28
grammar-translation to Berlitz to modern integrated textbooks, have used
examples of the language being learned in situations and settings. These range
from short dialogues to lengthy themes with casts of characters acting and
behaving in complex ways. Many collections of conversation or communication
activities are organized in terms of situations.
It is important to realize that there is not just one situational syllabus, but
many, differentiated by type of informational content and type of linguistic
content. Alexander (1976) has distinguished three types of situational syllabus,
differentiated by type of information: "limbo," concrete, 'and mythical. The limbo
situation is one in which the specific setting of the situation is of little or no
importance. Alexander gives the example of introductions at a party, where the
setting of the party is largely irrelevant, and what is important is the .particular
language focus involved. The concrete situation is one in which the situations are
enacted against specific settings`"(p. 98), and what is important is the setting and
the language associated with it. Ordering a meal in a restaurant and going through
customs are examples of concrete situations. The mythical situation is one that
depends on some sort of fictional story line, frequently with a fictional cast of
characters in a fictional place.
Among the different linguistic focuses that can be found in s i t u a t i o n s is
the grammatical focus, with which s i t u at i o n s are presented in such a way that
part i cul ar s t r u c t u r e s or sets of structures are emphasized. It. is possible to
imagine a pronunciation focus t h a t e m p h a s i z e s part i cul ar pronunciation
problems. Another is a lexical focus, whose emphasis is on some set of
vocabulary items. S it uat ions may emphasize functions, such as introduction or
apology, or n o t i o n , such as time or color or comparison. Finally, situations may
be constructed to present various types o f discourse or interactional
phenomena.
A related way to distinguish situational syllabi is to consider whether
situations are presented to s t u d e n t s in the form of completed discourse, or the
students are expected to create or modify parts or all of it. Many si t uat i ons are
presented in full, and students are then asked to play out the same situation using
their own language and, possibly, settings. On the other hand, situations can be
29
presented as role plays, in which the students are expected to create, supply, or
fill in much of the language that occurs in the situation.
4. Skill-Based Syllabi
Much less is known about the skill -based, task-based, and
content-based syllabi than about the types already discussed. This is
especially true of the skill-based syllabus, a type that has not been
previously identified as a separate kind of instructional content in the
literat ure on language teaching. The term "skill" in language teaching
has generally been used to designate one of the four modes of
language: speaking, listening, reading, or writing (Chastain, 1976).
Here, however, the term is used to designate a specific way of
defining the content of language teaching.
A working definition of skill for this volume is a specific way
of using language that combi nes structural and functional ability but
exists independently of specific set ti ngs or situations. Examples are
reading skills such as skimming and scanning; writing skills such as
writing specific topic sentences and certain kinds of discourse (e.g.,
memos, research reports, work reports); speaking skills of' giving
instructions, delivering public talks, giving personal information for
bureaucratic purposes, asking for emergency help over the telephone;
and listening skills such as getting specific info rmation over the
telephone, listening to foreign radio broadcasts for news or military
information, taking orders in a restaurant, and so on. Another, and
more traditional, way of viewing skill-based instruction is what is
called competency-based instruction. Competencies are similar to
behavioral objectives in that they define what a learner is able to do as a result
of instruction. Extensive lists of competencies have been developed for
adult ESL (refugee and immigrant) programs in the United States.
Not all native speakers of a language are equally competent users of
language. Also, individuals have varying competence in the different skill areas.
For example, even though anyone reading this book may be considered a
30
speaker of English, including many native speakers, not all are reading with
the same degree of efficiency. Some are more "skilled" readers than others.
At the same time, one person may be a particularly skilled reader but perform
extremely poorly when required to carry on an emergency conversation on a
mobile radio. Or someone who is an inefficient reader may be adept at getting
people to buy waterbeds.
The ability to use language in specific ways (settings and registers) is
partially dependent on general language ability, but partly based on experience
and the need for specific skills. Language skills may, in fact, be limited to
specific settings. Many waiters and waitresses in restaurants, and other workers in
similar jobs, have learned only the English skills needed to carry out their
work in the restaurant. They have learned a specific second-language skill.
Preparing students to undertake higher education in a second language often
involves teaching them specific skills such as note-taking, writing formal papers,
and skimming and scanning while reading.
5. T h e Task -B ased Syl labus
The task-based syllabus is relatively little-known. It is largely based on work
by Krahnke (1981, 1982), Candlin and Murphy (1986), and Johnson (1982). The
defining characteristic of task-based content is that it uses activities that the learners
have to do for noninstructional purposes outside of the classroom as opportunities
for language learning. Tasks are distinct from other activities to the degree that they
have a noninstructional purpose and a measurable outcome. Tasks are a way of
bringing the real world into the classroom.
Task-based learning is sometimes similar to situational learning, but the
content of the situations is provided by the students themselves. Tasks are also not
static; that is, they should involve a process of informational manipulation and
development. They should also involve informational content that the language
learners do not have at the beginning of the task. Another characteristic of tasks is
that they require the student to apply cognitive processes of evaluation, selection,
combination, modification, or supplementation (so-called "higher-order thinking
skills") to a combination of new and old information. In task-based instruction,
31
language is not taught per se, but is supplied as needed for the completion of the
task.
An example of a task is to have the students develop a guidebook to their
school or instructional program for actual use by other students. Immigrant
students might research the availability of health care in their community
and develop a guide to using health care facilities. In an academic setting,
students might work on a paper or report that is actually needed for a content-area class. Beginning students might tackle the process of applying
for a program or job, obtaining the forms and information necessary to
complete the process.
The intent of task-based learning is to use learners' real-life needs
and activities as learning experiences, providing motivation through
immediacy and relevancy. The focus on processing of new and old
information in an interactional manner stimulates transfer. Lan guage form
is learned through language use.
Task-based learning is structurally geared toward language learning
or acquisition because the tasks are part of a language learning
environment or program are chosen in part for what they will contribute to
language development, and are implemented in a way that provides as
much experience and feedback as possible. The language needed to carry
out tasks is not provided or taught beforehand, but discovered by students
and provided by teachers and other resources as the task is carried out.
6. The Content-Based Syllabus
Content-based language teaching has been in existence for some
time, but has only recently been recognized as a viable way of teaching
language as an end in itself. In concept, content-based teaching is simple: It
is the teaching of content or information in the language being learned with
little r direct or explicit effort to teach the language itself separately from
the content being taught. In practice many programs using a content-based
approach have also included an instructional component specifically
32
focusing on the target language, but such specific language instruction is
not regarded as the primary contributor to target language acquisition.
Recent developments in content-based teaching are closely related to
the broader issue of attempts to provide effective instruction to LEP children in
public schools in the United States and Canada. One solution to the problem
of limited school language proficiency has been some sort of controlled
immersion in the language of the school or society. "Immersion " essentially
has meant that students are given content instruction in a language they may
not control well or at all; that is, they simply go to school in that language.
When under taken responsibly and informedly, immersion can maximize the
students' comprehension of both the target language and the content
material.
The potential for the success of immersion was established by
controlled research carried out in Canada (Lambert S. Tucker, 1972). In
this research program, students were placed in school subject cla sses,
starting at the kindergarten level, that were taught in languages other than
their first. The results of the research demonstrated that such students had
learned both the content being taught and the language in which it was
taught, and that cognitive development was not slowed by such an
experience.
This type of evidence, and the need to educate large numbers of
non-English-speaking children in the United States and Canada, gave
support to bilingual education programs in both countries as a solution to
t h e problem of educating children who do not speak the language of the
educational system. The goals of bilingual education programs have been
to keep non-dominant language speakers in school, to ensure that their
cognitive development continues at an acceptable rate, and to give them
ability in the community language that they did not have proficiency in,
leading, ideally, to bilingualism.
C. Choosing and Integrating Syllabi
33
The term syllabus, as used here, does not refer to a document
guiding the teaching of a specific language course, but to a more
theoretical notion of the types of content involved in language teaching
and the bases for the organization of language courses.
In the preceding chapters, six types of syllabus content were
defined and described as ideal or isolated types. In actual teaching
settings, of course, it is rare for one type of syllabus or content to be used
exclusively of other types. Syllabus or content types are usually
combined in more or less integrated ways, with one type as the organizing
basis around which the others are arranged and related. For example,
many foreign language courses are organized around a structural
syllabus, with each unit or chapter focusing on several grammatical
features.
Accompanying
the
grammatical
focus
and
organization,
however, are other types of content, usually situational (dialogues) and
functional (how to introduce yourself).
Basic syllabus design involves several questions. The first question
concerns the types of content to include or exclude. The second is whether
to combine various types of syllabus content or to rely on a single type.
The third, assuming that more than one type of content will be included, is
whether to use one type as basic and to organize others around it, or to
sequence each type more or less independently of the other. In discussing
syllabus choice and design, then, it should be kept in mind that the issue is
not which type to choose but which types . and how to relate them to each
other. Before this issue is discussed, three factors that affect the choice of
syllabus or content in language teaching²program,
teacher, and
students²are examined.
Program Factors Affecting Syllabus Choice and Design
The major determinant in choosing a syllabus type for second
language teaching must be the goals and objectives of the overall
instructional program; that is, the type of knowledge or behavior desired as
an outcome of the instruction. This truism has not been consistently
34
recognized. For example, for a number of years it has been widely
accepted that ability to function communicatively in a second language is a
desirable outcome (among others) of foreign language instruction in sec ondary schools and at the college level. The emphasis in much of this
instruction, however, has remained on the structural and formal aspects of
language, presumably under the assumption that one kind of knowledge
(structural will lead to the other (ability to function). Yet ample evidence
has shown that more direct routes to functional ability are possible, using a
variety of types of instructional content such as situational, skill, and
notional/functional content. Thus the relationship of the goals of instruction
to the content of instruction has not always been direct.
Clearly, another factor that will affect the type of syllabus or syllabi that can
be chosen is the instructional re-sources available. Resources may include
elements such as time, textbooks and other materials, visuals (films, slides,
pictures), realia, and out-of-classroom resources such as other speakers of the
language, radio and television programs, films, field trips, and so on.
A final program factor affecting the choice of in structional
content may be the need to make the instruction accountable to
authorities or measurable by external measures²usually tests. The
influence of tests on the content of instruction is a we ll-known
phenomenon. Teachers and instructional programs often teach toward a
particular kind of knowledge if it is going to be tested, even though the
knowledge may not be what the students really need.
Teacher Factors Affecting Syllabus Choice and Design
Along with the more general program factors, teachers play a role in
determining what the content of language instruction will be. A truism of teaching
is that teachers tend to teach what they know. A teacher who is not familiar with
the formal aspects of a language will not be likely to try to teach a grammar lesson, but might, for example, focus on the social uses (functions) of language or
how it is used in various situations. On the other hand, the science teacher with one
student who does not speak the language of the classroom may go ahead and teach
35
science in the best way possible (content instruction) rather than try to give the
student a special language lesson.
Some research in teacher practice suggests that language teachers do not
accurately describe their own practice (Long & Sato, 1983), have contradictory
and inconsistent beliefs about language teaching (Krahnke & Knowles, 1984) and
tend to repeat their own experiences as students when they become teachers. As a
result, teachers can have a powerful influence on the actual syllabus of a classroom
even if the official or overt syllabus of the program is entirely different.
Student Factors Affecting Syllabus Choice and Design
Facts about students also affect what instructional content can be
used in an instructional program. The major concerns here are the goals of
the students, their experience, expectations, and prior knowledge, their
social and personality types, and the number of stu dents in a given class.
Ideally, the goals the students themselves have for language study
will match the goals of the program. When this is so, the question of goals
is easy to settle. Sometimes, however, programs and students have dif ferent goals. For example, one instructional program was designed to
teach the English of the broadcasting profession at a vocational school.
The program administrators assumed that the students ' language learning
goals were tied to the professional training they were receiving. Many
students, however, were more interested in attaining general English
proficiency to pre-pare them for even better positions than they were being
trained for. One way to meet both sets of goals would be to increase the
amount of general functional, situational, and skill content provided along
with the specialized skill and structural content that was being taught.
D. Combining and Integrating Syllabus Types
Throughout this monograph, syllabus types have been discussed
more or less ideally and independently, treating each as if it were the sole
type being used in instruction. In practice, however, few instructional
programs rely on only one type but combine types in vari ous ways.
36
A
distinction
exists
between
combination
and
inte gration,
although it is not absolute. Combination is the inclusion of more than one
type of syllabus with little at-tempt to relate the content types to each
other. For example, a lesson on the function of disagreeing (func tional)
could be followed by one on listening for topic shifts (skill) in which the
function of disagreeing has no significant occurrence. Such combination
frequently occurs in language teaching when various communica tive or
"fluency" activities (i.e., skills, tasks) are added on to a structural,
functional, or situational syllabus. Little or no attempt is made to relate
the content of the two types of instruction.
Integration is when some attempt is made to interrelate content
items. For example, if, after a structural lesson on the subjunctive,
students were asked to pre-pare stories on the theme, "What I would do if
I were rich, " the two types of instruction would be integrated.
Integration is obviously more difficult and complex to undertake
than combination. Integration may seem to be the preferred way to use
different syllabus or content types, and in some ways this perception is
accurate. Instruction that reinforces and relates various syl labus and
content types is probably more effective than instruction that is divided
into discrete compartments. On the other hand, again, when specific
knowledge and behavioral outcomes are desired, discrete combinations may
be preferable to fully integrated syllab i .
For
example, if it is true
that instruction in form is directly usable by learners mostly for
Monitoring (Krashen,1982), then it may be that structural or formal syllabi
should make up, as Krashen suggests, a limited but separate part of the
overall curriculum, with the objective of enabling students to use the
structural knowledge in test-taking and editing settings, and not of enabling
them to gain active control over the use of the structures in discourse.
Another argument in favor of combination stems from the finding
that much of early second language behavior is a combination of formulaic
language use (use of memorized chunks of language for particular functions) and more creative and synthesized applications of rules (Ellis, 1986).
37
It may be that some situational or Functional content can be included with
the objective of providing the learners with the formulas and routines they
need for immediate and specific communication, and other types of
instruction can be used to foster their overall language acquisition.
E. A Practical Guide to Syllabus Choice and Design
The resources available for actual language teaching syllabi have been
described in this monograph, along with some of the constraints on choosing
and combining them. By now it is clear that no single type of content is
appropriate for all teaching settings, and the needs and conditions of each
setting are so idiosyncratic that specific recommendations for combination are
not possible. In addition, the process of designing and implementing an actual
syllabus warrants a separate volume.
Ten steps in preparing a practical language teaching syllabus:
1) Determine, to the extent possible, what out-comes are desired for
the students in the instructional program. That is, as exactly and
realistically as . possible, define what the students should be able to
do as a result of the instruction.
2) Rank the syllabus types presented here as to their likelihood of
leading to the outcomes desired. Several rankings may be
necessary if outcomes are complex.
3) Evaluate available resources in expertise (for teaching, needs
analysis, materials choice and production, etc.), in materials, and
in training for teachers.
4) Rank the syllabi relative to available resources. That is, determine
what syllabus types would be the easiest to implement given
available resources.
5) Compare the lists made under Nos. 2 and 4. Making as few
adjustments to the earlier list as possible, produce a new ranking
based on the resources constraints.
6) Repeat the process, taking into account the con straints contributed
38
by teacher and student factors described earlier.
7) Determine a final ranking, taking into account all the information
produced by the earlier steps.
8) Designated one or two syllabus types as dominant and one or two
as secondary
9) Review the question of combination or integration of syllabus type and
determine how combination will be achieved and in what proportion.
10) Translate decisions into actual teaching units.
This guide is intended as a general procedure to follow in making
syllabus decisions for specific instructional programs. It is expected that quite
different designs will emerge for each application, and this is as it should be.
What is important in making practical decisions about syllabus design is that all
possible factors that might affect the teachability of the syllabus be taken into
account. This can be done only at the program level.
39
References
Alexander, L.G. (1976). Where do we go from here? A reconsideration of some basic
assumptions affecting course design. English Language Teaching, 30(2), 89103.
Brown, H.D. (1980). Principles of language learning and teaching. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Brumfit, C.J., & Johnson, K. (Eds.). (1979). The communicative approach to language
teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Candlin, C., & Murphy, D. (Eds.) (1986). Language learning tasks (Vol. 7, Lancaster
Practical Papers). London: Pergamon.
Chastain. K. (1976). Developing second language skills: Tigory t,- practice. Chicago:
Rand McNally.
Dubin, F., & E. Olshtain. (1986). Course design: Developing programs and
materials for language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Ellis, R. (1986). U n d e r s t a n d i n g second language acquisition. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Harmer, Jeremy. (2000). The Practice of English Language Teaching. Harlow:
Pearson Education Ltd.
Krahnke, K.J. (1987) Approaches to Syllabus for Foreign Language Teaching. New
Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc.
Krahnke, K.J., & Knowles, M. (1984). The basis for belief: What ESL teachers
believe about language teaching and why. Paper presented at the 18 th
annual meeting of Teacher of English to Speakers of Other Languages,
Houston, March, 1984.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford:
Pergamon.
Lambert, W., & Tucker, G.R. (1972). The bilingual education of children.
Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Long, M., & Sato, C. (1983). Classroom foreigner talk discourse: Forms and
functions of teachers' questions. In H. Seliger & M. Long (Eds.),
Class oriented research in second language acquisi tion. Rowley,
MA: Newbury House.
40
Lozano, F., & Sturtevant, J. (1981). Life styles. New York: Longman.
Richards, J., & Rodgers, T. (1982). Method: Approach, Design, and Procedure. TESOL
Quarterly, 16(2), 153-168.
Widdowson, H.G. (1979). Explorations in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford
University Press
Wilkins, D.A. (1976). Notional syllabuses. O x f o r d : Oxford University Press.
Wolfson, N., & Judd, E. (1983). Sociolinguistics and language acquisition.
Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Yalden, J. (1943). The communicative syllabus: Evolution, design. and
implementation. Oxford: Pergamon.
41